Australian Immigration Daily News

Is there anything that you can do when “Murphy’s Law” strikes, and everything that could possibly go wrong, does go wrong? 

What if a visa applicant is entirely “blameless”, and the applicant’s failure to satisfy a criterion for the grant of a visa is the result of circumstances entirely outside the applicant’s control? 

Do the Federal Courts have a general power to “dispense with the Migration Regulations” in order to prevent a harsh or unjust outcome? 

The Australian Migration Profession will undergo CPD changes from 1 January 2018

The Office of the MARA (OMARA) are changing the CPD framework for registered migration agents from 1 January 2018.  The OMARA have received applications from CPD providers who would like to offer CPD and the Practice Ready Programme from the 1 January 2018.  Those applications have not yet been decided.  No CPD provider has been approved to deliver training in 2018 at this stage.   

All current CPD activities will expire on 31 December 2017.

It is very important that you complete any CPD that you started in 2017 and your CPD points are reported to the OMARA before 31 December 2017. 

There's an interesting article in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald concerning a joint investigation by Fairfax Media and SBS Television into an alleged "pay-for-visa" fraud that allegedly involved visa applicants making payments to a company in return for job placements in regional areas, and the company's allegedly making payments to employers for providing jobs to applicants and sponsoring them.

The article can be found at this link: "Million-dollar visa scam leaves migrants $50,000 out of pocket, boss drives Porsche"

The article indicates that there will be further details about the investigation on SBS tonight (14 November) at 7:30 p.m. (on the "Viceland" program and at 11 p.m.

Here’s an unusual case that just showed up recently on Austlii: Guder v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2017) FCCA 2527 (7 November 2017)

I’m wondering whether you would agree with the way that the Federal Circuit Court interpreted the relevant legislative instrument, pertaining to the time frame within which an English language proficiency test must be taken by an applicant for a 457 visa. 

The legislative instrument of concern in this case was IMMI 15/028, which is no longer in force. 

Does it matter if the applicant for a Partner visa is not concerned or interested in the religious life of his sponsoring partner? 

Does a lack of interest in one’s partner’s religious life necessarily mean that an applicant is not providing emotional support to his partner? 

Is it fatal to a Partner visa application?